Why is All Life Carbon Based, Not Silicon? Three Startling Reasons!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 май 2024
- Thank you to Wondrium for sponsoring today's video! Signup for your FREE trial to Wondrium here:ow.ly/GO1L50N4SRV
REFERENCE:
Quantum mechanics predicts periodic table: • How Quantum Mechanics ...
Origin of All the Elements: • The Surprising Origin ...
Patreon members helped us greatly IMPROVE this video from its original version. Join the community:
/ arvinash
CHAPTERS:
0:00 The question is Why Carbon?
1:22 First crucial factor: Complexity
5:54 Second factor: Abundance
7:06 Third factor: Stability precludes Silicon
9:29 Putting it all together
11:08 Other Forms of Life may exist already
12:16 Detailed course on this subject available at Wondrium
SUMMARY:
Why is carbon the foundation of life? All life is based on carbon chemistry, But carbon is not the most abundant element on earth. 20% of our body is made up of carbon, but it comprises less than 1% of the mass of the earth’s atmosphere, oceans and crust. Why did life go to the trouble of concentrating Carbon 20 fold in our bodies, when other more abundant elements, like Oxygen and Silicon were available, or even Nitrogen which makes up 78% of our atmosphere?
The answer boils down to three things: complexity, abundance and stability. Complexity: Carbon is able to form the complex molecular structures needed for the complex chemistry that life requires. Each carbon atom can form a strong stable bond with up to 4 other atoms including other carbon atoms. This feature of carbon gives it the ability to form complex molecules, which is necessary for the complex chemical functions that life requires. Carbon is uniquely able to take part in a vast multitude of chemical processes. It can easily form long stable polymer chains that can, for example, carry a lot of information. This is the case for DNA.
The other elements are not as interesting. For example, oxygen with is the most abundant element, but it can form only 2 bonds. This means that once it bonds with 2 other atoms, it’s done. It can’t really form interesting scaffolds of complex molecules, like carbon can. Boron could be interesting because it can form 3 bonds, but it’s extremely rare, so it’s just not very available for life to have chosen it as its backbone.
The second factor that made carbon attractive for life to latch onto is abundance. 4 out of the top 5 of elements of the solar system are also among the top 5 elements making up the human body. There is plenty of it in the universe. It is very abundant. It’s easier to build something that you have a lot of. You can’t build a castle if you don’t have enough Lego bricks.
What about Silicon since it can also form 4 bonds like carbon, or Nitrogen which forms only 3 bonds, but makes up 78% of our atmosphere. This brings us to the third factor in determining the most suitable element that nature chose for life, stability, bond stability.
Silicon, like Carbon, it also has four valence electrons. This means it can also make four covalent bonds. For every molecule made out of carbon, there can be an analogous molecule with silicon in its place. Silicon also happens to be quite abundant on earth. In fact, there is more silicon on earth than carbon. It’s just locked in rocks within the earth’s crust.
The main difference between silicon and carbon is that has its unpaired electrons farther away from its nucleus, on its third shell, whereas carbon’s electrons are on its second shell, closer to the nucleus. This makes Silicon’s electrons more weakly bound to its nucleus. The consequence of this is that when silicon bonds with other atoms including itself, the bonds formed are weaker, and thus less stable.
This bond strength factor is also a reason Nitrogen is not well suited to be the backbone of organic chemistry, as its bond strength is roughly half of carbon. The backbone has to be strong enough to withstand the conditions under which other parts of the molecule break their bonds and react chemically with other molecules. So the carbon-carbon scaffold needs to remain intact while its functional components break apart. A molecular scaffold made from nitrogen or silicon would more easily break apart.
#carbonbasedlifeforms
#silicon
#carbon
So if we go back now to the periodic table, and look at the first 3 rows of elements. If we remove elements with very low abundance, this leaves only hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and Silicon. And if we remove elements that can’t form more than two bonds, that eliminates hydrogen. Then if we remove those that cannot form strong single bonds to themselves to create a strong molecular backbone, this leaves pretty much only Carbon as the best choice. It is uniquely suited for life because of the best combination of abundance, ability to form complex structures, and stable bonds with other carbon atoms. 
Наука
Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you also took their shoes.
Instructions unclear: arrested for robbery wearing a homeless man's tattered shoes. Currently awaiting processing and treatment for Hepatitis C and ringworm.
@@drewishafHow did the cops catch you?
@@theunluckycharm9637 He was too busy criticizing his shoes.
Truly an excellent presentation, Arvin! I had heard that C was overall the best element for life to form. Now I really know why!
What are you talking about??
As a Carbon life form, I can conform that I'm truly based.
Lol
Hydrogen is still superior
@@motherisape quiet primitive single protoned life form.
hahahahahaha smartest utube comment
@@ggnkrsfkoqxbk5078 bro atomically insulted someone
As an informed layman with a scientific background I've often wondered about the question "why carbon?" You just explained it clearly and succinctly, thanks.
I mean isn’t it fair to say:
“Because carbon is easy”?
Relatively speaking
@@user-dv6im5vf7h Well, yes, but that just begs the question of WHY carbon is "easy" as opposed to another element.
Unfortunately, as succinct and informative as this video is, it is horribly flawed and narrow in scope, because it's attempting to drive a narrative that carbon based life forms as we know them are the only reasonable way for consciousness to be "housed," as it were. I mean, this gentleman didn't even bother to define what he or most laypersons consider to be "life" or "living organisms." If you don't bother to define "life" to begin with, you can't even make an argument about what "it" is.
@@Matthew-ut6ed the why follows from very basic chemistry. Important to remember , carbon is very reactionary is dependant on our environment, pressure, temperature, volume ...
Somewhere else it is likely to be some other element who takes center stage.
@Bluebloods7 This video said why carbon is the easiest, but pointed out that there may be other environments where other elements would work better.
It did not need to define life to define that the chemical processes required for life would more easily be able to use an element like carbon.
Wow, that was an awesome, super clear, explanation of carbon based life. So much fun to learn when explained so clearly.
Thank you. Glad it was helpful.
@@ArvinAsh The real question is; why do they have the right number of protons to have the right number of electrons to fill their shell fully?
Secular science may describe "what" happened. But they cannot explain the "why" it happened.
@@gracemember101 There is no need for a "why".
@@capitalistball2924There may be "no need" but there is a simple answer to "why ?". Because it could.
Biochemist here 😊
I think most people are afraid of chemistry because of the overwhelming amount of information and poor quality explanations filled with jargon.
This video illustrates this concept so well. I am so impressed by your explanation of this concept. Ive had organic chemistry students steuggle to explain this concept and this is s great resource. If we had more instructiors like you, we could get much more done.
That's great to hear from an educator. Thank you for what you do!
@@ArvinAsh thank you for this information
I agree. If it weren’t for the love of science and stubborn curiosity I wouldn’t have done well in any of the sciences. I’ve learned to simplify what I’m learning in as few words as possible within the first few weeks of class. I challenge my idea with the teachers to confirm if the simplification has enough merit for me to follow through with the “learning” theme.
Organic chemistry for instance, is just one giant recipe book or cook book. You have to wrap your head around some pretty convoluted concepts in the first few chapters, and if you do the rest of the book is just memorizing recipes.
This theme worked for both orgo 1 and 2.
The students that found it hard on my experience were the ones who didn’t know the stable and unstable (cations and anions) structures of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, the halides, which is the first concept you have to wrap your head around to learn all the others. So if you don’t know that I don’t know how you’d pass without cheating.
Wait till AI gets its oar in. Comprehension and consciousness are contingent.
Chemistry like mathematics requires a good foundation to be able to take on more advanced topics and methods of analysis.
The main failing in the field of mathematics at school is the lack of algebra foundation and an obsession with trying to cover far to many subjects within the field of mathematics. It would create a far better outcome if students were just focused on algebra for their duration of school.
To recap, both C & Si have these two properties in common:
* they can both form 4 bonds for making complex molecules
* they are both relatively abundant on Earth.
C trumps Si by being able to form stronger bonds with itself because its valence electrons are closer to the + nucleus. Thanks for the tutorial on basic chemistry based on the periodic table. This makes it clear for viewers with different backgrounds in chemistry.
Even more important, as pointed out at the end of the video, is that carbon is plentiful in water where life began. CO2 from the atmosphere is absorbed into water. It doesn't matter how much silicon is on the planet, it matters how much is in the water. And it sure helps life to have carbon in the atmosphere for life on land. Without carbon in the atmosphere, plants wouldn't exist, and animals would have to get food from the water.
As Preston Crow already stated, the main advantage of C over Si here on earth(!) is that C is (under the pressures and temperatures we have here) available in solid, gaseous and liquid (dissolved) form what makes metabolism easy as you can absorb, transport and discard it very comfortably.
Biologist speaking ;)
@@klaunfuhrer That makes a 4th important point. thanks.
@klaunführer ZAGREB imagine a planet with weird plants that absorb silicone under the light of a white star and some weird solvent :)) I want to live long enough until another lifeform gets discovered.
Why not with Si-C bond
the bond strength of Si-C bonds is stronger than that of C-C bonds.
As an ecologist and general biologist, my organic chemistry course has served me very well in spite of only managing a B. Had your video and others as good as it been available, I would have done better and not felt at the time that chemistry was a grind to be endured.
It happens my fellow carbon bases organism. Sometimes in the face of duty we make everything seem bleak, when in reality the most simple answer is to do what you want. I truly believe what you wanted was to just explore the content and mesmerise within the knowledge, but the fear you placed in yourself made it a chore. I hope from this, and anyone reading can understand my final quote at the end, which is 'things to endure can only be things that we actually enjoy. What we don't enjoy will not be endured'.
I hope that little nugget of thought sparked a curiosity or a question or an epiphany in the observer. I also want to hear your opinions guys on whether my words communicated the right thing, or whether I can articulate it better, or whether my argument can be improved overall.
@@bobbylal5747sorry, no; not clear, concise or captivating enough to endure .. I barely could get to the end of your short screed.
Here's a hint, simpler instead of more simple; look:
far farther farthest,
slow slower slowest,
simple simpler simples
etc
See how that works?
Simple more simple, more simpler? Nonsense follows from the elevation of the inferior & inadequate more simple; it doesn't scale.
It's so easy to think modern is best, but often it isn't.
Bc your English is vague, your concept is too; language & conceptual acuity tend to cohabit - improve one & you improve the other.
I hope my honesty is of value to you; more time as a student before aspiring to teach is my advice.
The problem with chemistry is that too much content obscures the principles; this idea scales for all teaching.
Students don't need to know it all. They need to know enough to understand the relevance of the elements of knowledge, to be inspired by the connections between them, such that they can pursue their own education.
This is why elementary knowledge is foundational - reading writing & arithmetic, then physics, biology & sociology.
You can blame Medical School.
Organic chemistry is a washout course.
At the time it is taught, students do NOT have the background to truly understand organic chemistry.
Thus, you end up having to memorize everything without a true understanding of 'why' things work.
Finish a Masters in organic chemistry or a PhD in gen chem and that undergrad organic chem course will make a lot more sense.
:)
😊
@@kevincaruthers5412 Seriously? Org chem is laughably simplistic in nature. I've found throughout the decades that those who found it to be difficult were those who bought into the narrative that it was difficult to begin with, and created their own self-fulfilling prophecy of its perceived difficulty, instead of just paying attention to the material and learning the "why" alongside the "how."
I never did physics in school but I've always been curious about pretty much everything and you literally answered so many questions in the most comprehensive fashion just like you said you would... wow 😅
It's always great when someone like you explains complex topics in such a way that basically everyone can understand
why not silicon or sulfur who knows🤣
Title is WRONG. We don't have a clue if ALL life is carbon based! We only know ONE planet with life and no other. Nobody from Earth knows how many life forms exist in this universe (and possibly other universes). We can't know what those life forms are made of, could be different compounds or energy, or something else we didn't discover yet. So, NO! You DON'T know what ALL life forms are made of. It's selfish and stuрid to assume we're the only one planet with life.
@@mikesamovarov4054
Why so butt hurt?
@@mikesamovarov4054 "It's selfish and stupid" calm down please, literally no-one is going to talk to you when you try to shut down discussion like that. We have literally 0, that's right 0 reason to believe that there is life out there. There's a reason scientists don't even bother talking with people like you because you will never change your mind no matter what evidence you're shown.
@@mikesamovarov4054 Nobody said that anywhere in the comments, nor in the title, nor in the video :l He explicitely says at the end what you just saidf. Have you actually watched it ?
Oh lord, I seem to have touched a nerve with the militant wing of the mycologists of the world! Yes, that red mushroom I showed at 0:10 is only MILDLY poisonous, not the MOST poisonous. This variety, known as Amanita muscaria is more hallucinogenic than poisonous. The internet mycologists are absolutely right to point out this grave mistake. I will be turning myself in to the Mycology police immediately, and will ask to be force-fed these "poisonous" Amanita as punishment!
May you rot in hell for offending marginalized mushrooms and mycologists named Karen everywhere.
What a funny way to react when you make a mistake! You should go in to comedy!
I'm glad you made a post. Was just about to mention... 😂
Ha, ha ! Love your self-correction on a “mistake” that only few of us can detect 😅 (NOT everybody is into mycology 😊).
I wasn't going to nitpick but... the title of this video is very misleading. It infers that there are three reasons why silicon-based life is not feasible. However, your explanation states that of the three reasons why we are carbon based: complexity, availability, and stability. Only the last, stability, is a strike against silicon-based life forms.
Thank you for finally giving me the answer . The elimination you do around 9:30 just makes it so clear
I listened to this clip while sweeping my garden. Even without seeing the graphics, I was able to follow and understand the facts put forward.
It is a credit to your ability to impart your knowledge to others.
I'll now play it a second time, and this time also watch. So I can enjoy the concepts now firmly squared away.
Thank you, professor.
There have been carbon/silicone hybrid lifeforms living in Beverly Hills for many years now. Did you not know about these?
lol. I must have been living under a rock!
I have seen some information on aliens that are silicone based.
🤣🤣🤣
Yes, but they aren’t natural life forms.
LOL! I dunno if artificial build-ins really count as hybrids, though...
My old organic chemistry teacher at Berkeley , Melvin Calvin used to go on national TV shows and talk about how other life forms based on Silicon could be on other planets . Star trek even had an episode called the Rock People. With silicon being so much heavier these silicon beings would have to be in an environment with lower gravity. BTW Calvin got a Nobel prize for discovering the path of carbon in photosynthesis.
Even nobel prize winners can be a bit silly sometimes when they want to be on tv. Why would they need lower gravity, they have silicon muscles. They don't even have to have muscles come to think of it or legs or heads or arms or anything. "They" could be single-cellular lifeforms.
Sorry to tell you this but there is no silicon based life in the universe. Silicon-silicon bonds are inherently unstable when coming into contact with any of the universe's most common materials (well, except helium). It just doesn't stand a chance.
@@yaldabaoth2dude, you’re fucking smart 🎉
@@yaldabaoth2Your statement regarding no silicon-based life forms existing anywhere in the universe is not incorrect. We know silicon can form a triple helix DNA structure and they are likely conditions in other planetary systems that would actually favor silicon chemistry over carbon. One such planet might have extremely high temperatures and carbon bonding of any type breaks down under those conditions, making carbon-based life impossible. Silicon-oxygen and silicon-aluminum bonds are stable to ~ 600 K and 900 K respectively. While it’s true that silicon-based life would be less flexible and adaptable and carbon-based life is inherently more stable under most conditions, it doesn’t preclude primitive silicon-based life forms from residing on alien worlds ✌️
@@roba.8907 And what kind of metabolism would you suggest at those temperatures based on silicon? Just having Silicon oxygen bonds is worthless. That's just sand.
@@roba.8907look up the Arecibo message and Arecibo answer. It describes a silicon based alien life form that uses a triple helix dna structure. Crazy stuff
That is one of the best videos I saw explaining the topic!!! Thank you for the amazing effort 👌
This video is so well structured! Thanks so much🥰
Very good introduction. You mention that life on Titan may use liquid methane or ethane as a solvent. However just as Carbon has unique properties, water is also a special case. It can disolve more substances than any other solvent known. It is polar, has a high heat capacity and high heat of vapourisation. It also has unusual surface tension and its solid form is less dense than its liquid form. So just as carbon is the most plausible element for life, water seems to be the most plausible solvent!
The other very important property of water is that it gets less dense as it cools (down to 4C). All other liquids get more dense as they cool (It's why life can continue in 'frozen' lakes')...
But in areas where water, liquid or otherwise, is non-existent but there is plentiful hydrogen lakes why wouldn’t life be able to form in those lakes based on very different principles?
Admittedly we probably wouldn’t recognise them as living things except by noticing movement that couldn’t be explained by other processes.
Same thing for planets with methane rain and seas, why couldn’t there be life evolving that use that environment as the driving force of its development?
We look for carbon life because we know it exists and how to recognise because it’s all we’ve ever known and know our environment produces life on a world with carbon-based life that evolved in liquid water oceans. What would we look like if the water we evolved in was liquid mercury or whatever instead?
Would we just be silvery or more dense mercury worms feeding on nutrient-dense other mercury worms, and bottom-feeders just dissolving metallic rocks?
Would it just look to other carbon life like a river of mercury where osmosis of particulates was occurring?
@@Nevyn515 Did you read my reply?
@@Nevyn515 I was very careful in using the word "plausible" in my post as I did not want to rule out the *possibility* of other forms of life. However I'm not sure what you mean by "different principles". If you mean that on different planets chemistry and physics would be completely different then I would find that very difficult to believe. Take water expanding when it freezes for example. When a lake gets cold enough to start freezing the solid ice floats to the top. This creates a layer that stops the rest of the lake from contacting the cold air, and so the life in the lake is protected from freezing. *No other liquid that we know of would do this!* (Correction: no other non-metal liquid would do this). The solid form would sink to the bottom and the process would continue until the lake was frozen solid from bottom to top. There is no question that not being frozen solid is very *convenient* for earth life. But is it *essential* for all life anywhere? I really don't know. But I am very sure that no other (non-metal) liquid on any other planet would be able to perform this feat. So if being protected from freezing solid turns out to be *essential* then water is the only option. The same applies for every other unique feature of water. So I consider water based life most *plausible.*
Yeah I understood, but thanks for assuming I didn’t.
Arvin just wanted to say thanks for all the videos you do. You are one of the best at explaining things in a way that makes it easier to digest. Im sure a lot of people who watch your videos agree with my sentiments. Your content is much appreciated.
I appreciate that! Glad you like them.
@@ArvinAsh Thank you. Keep doing what you're doing and best of luck. I hope a lot more people become aware of this channel and its content. It truly is one of the best out there.
@@ArvinAsh I always wondered this question and here's the answer, thank you. I was wondering if you were considering updating the quantum eraser video. Sabine's video actually made me more thrown off.
Yes! I always to come this guys page if I need help understanding a concept
I think what makes Arvin so good at explaining is the preparation in making the graphic presentations along with putting it all together into a concise package. Pure genius and tons of hard tedious and meticulous work to make what is extremely hard look easy.
Great video, explains a complex situation with simple arguments. Thank you.
Spectacular! Explanation is quite clear, and the concepts are quite simplified but deep into the basic knowledge of sciences. The didacticism is superb! I am a scientist and love this approach to explain Nature and the Universe. Thank you for sharing this, it is so highly educational!
You remind me of my chemistry teacher in your ability to make things easily understandable dispite the complexity! The knowledge you're sharing and effort you put in to this is very much appreciated 😊
Many thanks my friend!
Chemistry teacher?
I wish he could become my chemistry teacher .If he becomes I will always get A+
This is the best explain video about chemistry that i have ever seen in my life, just makes me think school is too boring. Thanks Arvin!
Maybe roughly half a year of Chemistry school knowledge, comprised to less than 15 minutes, - and highly digestible. ;)
"Explanatory" was the word you searched for . . . it's a pity you were bored that much . . . perhaps it was your attitude at that time.
Nah im in highschool and ive learned all things applied here.@@Badbentham
Thank you. That was an absolutely amazing explanation: very quick and super easy to understand!!! Thank you!
Thanks so much for creating and sharing this educational and entertaining video. Great job.
The existence of carbon-based lifeforms implies the existence of the carbon-cringe lifeforms.
I can think of many politicians that would fit that latter life form description!
My pre med major was honors biochemistry, and I never had a professor as good as Arvin!
That's very high praise. I appreciate that, though I'm not worthy.
@@ArvinAsh yes, you definitely are!
@@ArvinAsh I beg to differ. Please sir. No need for the modesty. We all subscribe for your brilliance. We are all grateful.
I'm literally starting my undergrad in Biochemistry this summer! I'm so excited and one day hope to work in the field of neurochemistry. These videos have been flooding my timeline lately, and I cant stop watching them!
@@ArvinAsh Being humble and down to earth is traits of noble men like you
Wonderful! This video opened my mind about life forms and life complexity. Amazed about that.
Excellent video! Very clear and informative.
I normally am fascinated by all kinds of science but my teacher makes physics and chemistry the most painful chores I've had to go through in my life, but THIS video is so incredible I can't describe how much I love it. Thank you so much for your explanation
yep buddy, shit teachers are a curse on the world...why dont you tell your teacher you can watch some youtube vids while he can leave the room and smoke a bowl somewhere...😂😂😂
My chemistry class was fun to learn. I did earth science and that's my favorite class ever but they got rid of it and made people do physics after our year.
Title is WRONG. We don't have a clue if ALL life is carbon based! We only know ONE planet with life and no other. Nobody from Earth knows how many life forms exist in this universe (and possibly other universes). We can't know what those life forms are made of, could be different compounds or energy, or something else we didn't discover yet. So, NO! You DON'T know what ALL life forms are made of. It's selfish and stuрid to assume we're the only one planet with life.
@@mikesamovarov4054 I don't think this is the point of this video, it id probably meant to show carbon's properties but it's true that the title is misleading
@@mikesamovarov4054 "selfish"
It is difficult to see how belief in carbon's biological exclusivity confers an unfair advantage on us. (And unfair to whom?) Perhaps you mean "self-absorbed", but it is really pointless to spend the time and concern we should spend mastering what we do know spinning our mental wheels about what we don't know. Adding "as far as we know" to every generalization would be idiotic and pointless, it is implied by the nature of scholarship, unless otherwise specified. And he didn't assume we are the only planet with life, HE BROUGHT UP THE SUBJECT HIMSELF, properly, as a afterthought and a qualification of the legitimate generalization. How much trivial information (or more properly speculation, because we're talking about information that nobody available knows) do you expect to include in a title?
I am 55 year old.I was introduced to organic chemistry when I was 18 years old But only today ,I could understand the importance of the elements in each column of periodic table.Thanks a lot.
We were introduced when we were 12
@A.m.a.r.a ⟵(o_O) I misclicked, meant 13
Introduced at 12, sure, but did you understand the relevance?
Fundamental problem of education - what to teach, when & how.
@a.m.a.r.a_PSin Brazil it's 13/14 on private schools and 15 on public schools.
I had this doubt from a very long time.... thank you for such an informative video
I am improving my knowledge of science watching your videos. I am very grateful to your effort in promoting your knowledge Sir. ❤❤❤
Can't thank enough to make it so simple, decomposed and easy to digest bits-by-bits. Simply put, you are one of our Carbon bondings on which we build our learning foundation. So thank you from the bottom of heart, Arvin. God bless you more abundantly!!
Arvin, thank you so much for these videos- you’re answering questions that younger version of me asked others and forgot about! I appreciate your explanations and animations, it’s such a treat to watch. I hope you’re doing well, take care brother!
Title is WRONG. We don't have a clue if ALL life is carbon based! We only know ONE planet with life and no other. Nobody from Earth knows how many life forms exist in this universe (and possibly other universes). We can't know what those life forms are made of, could be different compounds or energy, or something else we didn't discover yet. So, NO! You DON'T know what ALL life forms are made of. It's selfish and stuрid to assume we're the only one planet with life.
@@mikesamovarov4054 it’s the only life we know of? Contextually speaking, he never said we’re the only planet with life
I never understood so well the connections between atoms as you made me understand today! The diagram you used and your explanation was so clear! Thank you so much!
Superb explanation. Visually well done.
I'm so glad you mentioned the possibility of non-carbon based life forms. You also beautifully explained why we haven't seen it though. Amazing as always.
This is important as not all things are able to be explained away by logic
earth had Silicon based life around 20,000 years ago, they were destroyed.
Title is WRONG. We don't have a clue if ALL life is carbon based! We only know ONE planet with life and no other. Nobody from Earth knows how many life forms exist in this universe (and possibly other universes). We can't know what those life forms are made of, could be different compounds or energy, or something else we didn't discover yet. So, NO! You DON'T know what ALL life forms are made of. It's selfish and stuрid to assume we're the only one planet with life.
@@mikesamovarov4054 you obviously didn't watch the video
@Mike Samovarov yea like sapient and replicating AI, ghosts, silicon or phosphorus based life, life that feeds in electricity, etc
What I absolutely love about this channel is that I will have a question about physics or other science and then Arvin will upload the exact answer with awesome visuals almost right after I thought of it
I have been out of high school now officially for 13 years and not even halfway through this video this is helping re-simplify old knowledge and make me understand it better. Where was this guy when I needed a chemistry teacher? I almost picked up a notepad and started taking notes.
Idea for merch store if you have one. "You can't build a castle if you don't have enough Lego bricks" You should frame that and put that in your office.
This video is amazing! Such a hard theme, but very simple explanation to understand. Greetings from Serbia!😁
Thanks for this. In particular, the part about silicon's outer shell being further away from its nucleus, thus making its bonds less stable than carbons bonds.
There is nobody better than Arvin explaining complex subject matter
It is a gift
Thank you for putting in all the hard work so that regular people can understand subjects that only universities students would learn
Have a wonderful day today
University students? I was taught all this in 6 grade of ordinary soviet school. What happened to the world..
Sh callese
Thank you, Arvin. I learned most of this when I was 17. 55 years ago. You remind me of the marvel of science. Beautiful.
As a physics teacher. This explanation of this question is simple to follow. Thank you so much . My understanding of chemistry has been enriched
I know pretty much nothing about chemistry and physics and this was cristal. The breakdown into the 3 main points, the examples and illustrations. Top tier vulgarisation.
believe the term you're looking for is articulation
@@mjgII i don't think vulgarisation is written with a s tho. Fixed that
Love your videos. I have a background in science/engineering, but there are so many interesting realizations about physics and everyday life I have never wondered about. You do an excellent job at finding interesting subjects and explaining them in a simple and exciting manner.
This was a freat video. I learned something new, and useful. The visuals were spot on, too.
Terrific explanation of a complex subject, thank you.
This video explained chemistry better to me than school ever could. I finally understand 😭
Cringe +unfunny
Hating school is not cool anymore
Grow up
@@self-proclaimedanimator The fellow is clearly stating that he has learnt something and is not trying to be funny, as I thought was apparent. Clearly there are less perceptive and well mannered individuals than I.
Because school's priority is indoctrination.
@@BoogiePraisingTheGoodLord
There are a lot of people in recent times that like to dog pile on hating Scholl, like me the other guy dislikes that.
Apparently they hate scholl becouse they understood a concept Better in a video.
Becouse a 10 minute video (not this One specifically) meant as entratainment surely has all the necessary information to explain something, and Scholl Is clearly failing with multiple hours. As some of them would Say, "Scholl bad LUL". Teachers are also clearly egomaniac control freaks because some of them behave poorly once and get caught on camera.
Is not like the concept Is harder in Scholl becouse there Is a lot more information and discourse meant to prove something, giving background concepts, and because you have to memorize things to pass an exam as to earn certifications so that you can work. Totally not. Surely those Who study for their job as teachers are incompetent Power hungry brain washing assholes. Logic. Some guys with this opinion often do know partial points to an argument, which are correct, but the Moment they are asked some specifics fails spectacularly.
Is not like most videos are doing a schematized version of the concept (often present in scholl's books) that the people seeing the videos have already studied in Scholl and so It sounds more understandable, with way less information to confirm what the video says, and so It result simpler than when they studied It.
I hate scholl haters. They are illogical and pretend so much from teachers, they call necessary decisions to have a functioning society as dumb or brainwashing becouse Scholl frustated them.
Sorry for the Wall text.
@@BoogiePraisingTheGoodLord Thank you. At least someone gets it.
I did Nutrition and Food Sciences in my undergrad and had to take biochemistry and organic chemistry classes. I still vividly remembered hours and hours I devoted to study my class notes to grasp the concepts.
what a great video! despite the (to me) foreign language, I was able to understand everything. this is the way, science should be presented in school. Great job!!
Fantastic video again! Interesting that PBS space time also did a series on this - both are brilliant. I have done high school and university chemistry and this has been the most beautiful presentation and distillation of reasons why carbon is the backbone I have ever seen. Bravo!!!!
I feel like I learned more form this video than from a whole year organic chemistry classes in high school! I only passed that class due to good behavior and always trying really hard, but I never learned anything significant. Thank you so much for this great video! Greeting from Argentina
Then maybe you should learn
@@realdragon You should learn how to socialize first
Kiss up comment
Maybe it’s cause you were really interested in this and chose to watch this video and not forced to learn thing day in and day out
You took organic chemistry classes in HIGH SCHOOL???
Really insightful, appreciate the information!
Your great videos keep getting better, Arvin! I often wondered that about Carbon. Nicely summarized at 9:29.
Thank you Arvin for the wonderful video and presentation on a lucid manner. I have taken for granted, carbon as the basis of life forms. I now know the 'why ' behind it. The possibility of silicon or even lead based life forms itself sounds so fascinating. The video is aesthetically and content wise superb.
This is a fantastic video - clear and concise.
Thank you for these wonderful videos! I have hated chemistry (especially inorganic) all through my school years as I could not get a feel for the underlying structure, as I could for physics and math. Suddenly, with your videos, I think I can fill those gaps to orient myself better. What a fantastic story teller you are!
I know this for long time since chemistry in my vocational high school! But, very interesting: My teacher didn’t explained this not even close as Arvin did! He’s one of amazing and persuasive teachers I ever know!
Very clear; very convincing. Excellent coordination between the point in the lecture and accompanying visuals.
4:12 - 4:49 This helped me alot, great visualisation, ty!
Thank you for teaching me. I always learn so much from you. Grazie!
My pleasure!
You have been a Guru to me in this video. As a person with no in-depth education in science, I knew very little about the basis of organic chemistry, though I have often wondered about Carbon being the foundational element in organic chemistry. Your explanation based on Quantum Mechanics has been very illuminating. Many thanks.
Great explanation! You managed to deliver a complex topic in such a "common user friendly" way! Thank you for that.
Thnx for such simple explanation
Well explained, thankyou!
I'd listen to your lectures every day and I'll enjoy going into your classroom at a university level. The algorithm brought me here and for once I'm happy about it. Subscribed!
One of the best teachers in the world!!! Thank you for making your fantastic educational videos!
excellent clarity in this video
Very well presented and very informative.
Thank you. Your channel has helped me a lot through the years when it comes to my own research. This video shows how chemical elements behave like a language system same as any type of system in the world.
To me, no one can explain (complex) physics better than Arvin Ash. He explains it in the way I like to reason.
Thanks, Arvin. 🙂
Nice video... Well explained... You could have added one more point viz. Catenation, which again helps to form complex structures with carbon backbones.
Superb Illustration!!
I was thinking about it the other day, hoping that you'd create such a video and there we have it! Thank you! 😭♥️
I have a master degree in chemistry and never heard an explanation more clear than this video. If you sir have students they are blessed.
then i surgest you get ya money back and refrain from calling yaself an expert
11:42 wow, this is a thought I have been having a lot recently. Good to see someone else also thought of it
Mind blowing.. Nicely explained.
Amazing video. So easy to understand, yet answers so many questions. Thank you!
Excellent presentation. Proof that a complex subject can be explained in an uncomplicated manner easily understood by anyone.
I love your content, Arvin. ❤
Sir,,Thank You for the Video, I learned something today… 👍👍👍😎
Amazing channel with fantastic information. Keep up your fine work! ❤😊
Ok
But the questions are...
Can nature make something as complex as this?
Can a laptop or a car be made by nature?
Can nature protect itself from humans, or do we have to obey climate change laws and regulations?
Of course no.
Didn't you look at or read about things and structures that are deep inside our bodies, like proteins or organisms, that never make any mistakes, like ribosomes or the complexity of DNA and RNA.
Only Allah can make those complex systems without any mistakes.
I advise you to read more about Islam and who Allah is.
This explains alot to me on stability of molecules etc. The video is well laid out. It really helped me grasp some of the points I couldn't understand in chemistry class years back. Thank you so much. Excellent.
Love the scientific and simple explanation. Thank you!
Excellent and easy to understand explanation.
Wonderful explanation. Concise logical and clear at the same time. Kudos!
This has to be the best explanation of this concept that I've ever seen!!! And I presume many will agree!
Lucid exposition ! Thank You 🙏 How I wish, we in India of such good lectures !
9:57 You can make crazy and fairly stable N-backboned molecules. But also here the activation energy (combustion of ammonia: 220 kJ/mol, combustion of Methane: 2648 kJ/mol) is the crucial point, that carbon is preferred by nature.
[I just used google to get the values and used the first hit. I think, the values may be not exact, but they refer relatively well to reality.]
Also: Nitrogen has a very crucial disadvantage: the free electron pair. At the one hand, it can lead to a higher reactivity, at the other hand, it is more difficult to fix structures, because of the high flexibility of the free electron pair. The in contrast to any atom the free electron pair can change the "side" on the atom, where it is located.
Ntrogen is also highly electronegative, maybe that has something to do with this too?
That was a really clear and easy to understand explanation. Thanks
For anyone who wants to read more on this topic, I’d recommend the book: Life as we do not know it, by Peter Ward
I love book recommendations! Thanks!
An excellent read. I have it around here somewhere. Someone told me that someone did a video that basically goes through all the same stuff but I could never find it. Thanks for mentioning it, it's a good time to go back and read it again 😸😻👍
@@stephanieparker1250 It's a worthy read. A bit dry in spots and a little too much fluff in others (I prefer a bit more scientific analysis 😅) but it's quite interesting... It won't bore you to sleep too much 😉
@@DaellusKnights Thanks 🤗✨
@@stephanieparker1250 you are welcome ! It is a great broad discussion. It starts talking about non or near life such as bacteria and viruses and then moves on to other chemical bases, such as silicon and arsenic. I agree this one is a bit dry. But I find most of his books pretty interesting. All early 2000s so a little out of date.
My favourite book of his is Rare Earth, and Why complex life is uncommon in the universe. It goes thru the factors that enabled complex (ie multi cellular) life to develop on earth. It’s a different view than the purely mathematical Drake equation
This video is insanely informative! Thanks for making it, good sir!
Title is WRONG. We don't have a clue if ALL life is carbon based! We only know ONE planet with life and no other. Nobody from Earth knows how many life forms exist in this universe (and possibly other universes). We can't know what those life forms are made of, could be different compounds or energy, or something else we didn't discover yet. So, NO! You DON'T know what ALL life forms are made of. It's selfish and stuрid to assume we're the only one planet with life. This video is childish at best.
Clear, brief, simple, and human explanation. 10/10.
SUPER video, thanks so much!
Hats off to you Arvin. You are a great teaching talent. Thanks you for these wonderful videos.
This single video answered my dozens of questions from nature and universe.
This video is amazing. Thank you.
Very well explained sir thank you❤
Thank you for the highly digestible refresher on such an interesting aspect of chemistry.
Wow Arvin, I have been thinking about this question for quite a few years. You have made the first attempt in answering it in a way that is easy to digest.
Brilliant!!